Title: Flow: For Love of Water Director: Irena Salina Release Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The films main contention is that water is the primary life-giving force in the world and that the world’s dwindling supply of fresh water is now becoming privatized at an ever quickening pace. The privatization of this resource is rooted in politics and multinational corporations, with horrible side effects like pollution, disempowerment of the poor and human conflict. The issues are examined at both a global and local scale, all while staying focused on the key question: can anyone really own water?
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The first issues that the movie delves into are the issues of water quality and accessibility in the world. More than 2 million people die every year from water-borne diseases, with many of these deaths being children younger than 5 years old. In the United States alone, from 500,000 – 7 million people get sick every year from drinking the tap water, and atrazine is the number one pollutant found in US drinking water. Atrazine was found by independent research groups to be an endocrine disruptor, and a “feminizer,” causing prostate cancer in men, as well as low sperm counts. This brings up another problem within the water issue, that problem being the government. Atrazine is such a large pollutant in the US water supply because it is found in many herbicides. After preliminary research showed the possibility for the problems atrazine can cause in people, it was banned in the EU. In the US, however it is still legal. This is but one dangerous chemical in our water supplies.
All the pharmaceuticals and cosmetics we put on and in our bodies ends up back in our water supply. The bottled water companies would have the consumer believe that bottled water is cleaner and safer than tap water. However, tap water is held to a higher standard than bottled water is, as there are no real regulations on the contents of bottled water. Most bottled water is taken from municipal water systems where the plants are, and then named something exotic or attractive to get the consumers to think the water is better than their tap water.
The privatization of water ties into all of these problems, as privatized water is water only available to those who can afford it. As many as 1.1 billion out of the world’s 6 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water. In many developing nations, people are forces to pay for water that was a public good until their water system was privatized. Because that water is so expensive, people drink out of polluted streams nearby, where the water is free. However, these streams can contain cholera, and many other water-borne diseases. In Kwaz – Zulu, Natal, South Africa, the rural poor pay more for their water than the better-off urban people do. How does that even make sense? When the water meter system was installed, instructional books were handed out, but they were in English, which most of the villagers couldn’t read.
The World Bank actually promotes privatization in the developing world. If any country comes to them for aid, one of the conditions in receiving this aid is that that country must privatize its water system. When Bolivia asked for aid in 1997, it had to privatize its water, so water giant Bechtel came in and took over the water rights for the city of Cochabamba. Once the water was privatized, the price increased do much that many people couldn’t afford it, and even more people were enraged when told they could not collect rainwater, as that belonged to Bechtel as well. Protests turned into rioting, which then led to the overthrow of the previous government of Cochabamba, and a popular vote which led to Bechtel getting kicked out of the city.
The World Bank is also the world’s largest funder of Dams, which cause a drastic change in the local ecosystem and the flow of water and nutrients through that ecosystem. Dams stop water flow, cause the living matter in the water to rot, which then releases methane. Dams can sometimes be 20 times more polluting than a coal plant. The World Banks must spend $20 billion a year to remain profitable, and so they blow through most of it and huge projects every year in a few select places. The best solutions in most cases are much cheaper solutions across many areas of the world. But instead of spending small amounts in many places, the World Bank prefers to spend all its money in one or two places.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? What I enjoyed most about the film was the combination approach it took to the documentary, mixing scientific facts and data with pathos, the emotions and views of the people. I feel as if the film really accomplished its goals of conveying the severity of the problems at both global and personal scale. With that in mind, I really enjoyed the part of the film with Rajendra Singh and his revitalization of a village in India. When he first came to the village, it was almost a desert landscape, with a few bushes. He talked to the village elder, who told him how people used to harness water in the past, and he acted upon the man’s instructions. He got the whole village to help make a large catchment reservoir for water, and this brought lush greenery and jobs back to that village, and now Rajendra Singh is an activist for water rights, as much of India has its water privatized. The story of one man making that much of a difference, with the help of a community, was both inspirational. It also served as proof that there are ways to solve large problems with the power of people.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I found the film to have excellent delivery of its message, but the focus of the movie was really on water privatization in the developing world. This problem is a real one, but is also far removed from the experiences of the main viewership of this movie, the people of the western world. That is not to say that the impact of the movie is entirely lost, just that it is difficult for the average viewer to retain the view that drinkable water is a scarce resource in so many parts of the world when they go home and water is so abundant and cheap.
What audiences does the film best address? Why? The film best addresses a wide range of viewers, as the film presumes the viewer knows nothing about the issue or next to nothing about related issues. It deals with a topic relevant to every person on the face of the earth, which adds to its appeal. With that said, this film would most likely be more effective if viewed by an adolescent or young adult, as this film goes through the problem by touching on many of the problems that intersect the major problem of water scarcity, and builds on its previous information. The film requires almost no previous knowledge, and so the less known before watching means that information is that much more startling. The film also goes at a fairly fast pace, a pace some of the more elderly viewers may not care to keep up with.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? This is more a societal issue than an issue with the film, but the film could have included more about privatized water areas in the US or Europe, so the issue felt more relevant. The daily water consumption of an average American could have been given, and then it could have been compared to an Indian or African person’s water consumption, just to show how great the difference is. This would give a greater mental reference as to how much more severe their conditions are than our own.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film showed several points of intervention throughout the film. Water conservation techniques were shown as a way to provide an area with an adequate water supply. The power of protest was also explored with the Coca-Cola plant in India, where Coke was eventually forced to leave. Another interesting water purification solution shown in the film was UV water filtration on a local scale, where a town or village would have its own purification system maintained by a trained local person to keep costs down, and make the water cleaner so everyone can drink it safely. The film also asks the viewer to petition to add the Right to Water to be added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as article 31.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The film has compelled me to seek out more information on Rajendra Singh, the man who revitalized a village in India. This man is now known as the “Gandhi of Water” for his activism for the free public use of water. According to an article I found, he began on his journey to travel the entire length of the Ganges River to bring attention to India’s water problems on October 1, 2010. His focus is on smaller solutions that use appropriate technology for rural and developing areas.
After watching the movie and seeing the push to add the Right to Water, I wanted to see if there were other resources on this petition, and what I was actually led to was the website for this movie. The ‘take action’ tab of the website brings you to the place to sign the petition, but it also includes links to many places where there are many different groups in different parts of the world taking action against this problem of water ownership and scarcity.
Director: Irena Salina
Release Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The films main contention is that water is the primary life-giving force in the world and that the world’s dwindling supply of fresh water is now becoming privatized at an ever quickening pace. The privatization of this resource is rooted in politics and multinational corporations, with horrible side effects like pollution, disempowerment of the poor and human conflict. The issues are examined at both a global and local scale, all while staying focused on the key question: can anyone really own water?
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The first issues that the movie delves into are the issues of water quality and accessibility in the world. More than 2 million people die every year from water-borne diseases, with many of these deaths being children younger than 5 years old. In the United States alone, from 500,000 – 7 million people get sick every year from drinking the tap water, and atrazine is the number one pollutant found in US drinking water. Atrazine was found by independent research groups to be an endocrine disruptor, and a “feminizer,” causing prostate cancer in men, as well as low sperm counts. This brings up another problem within the water issue, that problem being the government. Atrazine is such a large pollutant in the US water supply because it is found in many herbicides. After preliminary research showed the possibility for the problems atrazine can cause in people, it was banned in the EU. In the US, however it is still legal. This is but one dangerous chemical in our water supplies.
All the pharmaceuticals and cosmetics we put on and in our bodies ends up back in our water supply. The bottled water companies would have the consumer believe that bottled water is cleaner and safer than tap water. However, tap water is held to a higher standard than bottled water is, as there are no real regulations on the contents of bottled water. Most bottled water is taken from municipal water systems where the plants are, and then named something exotic or attractive to get the consumers to think the water is better than their tap water.
The privatization of water ties into all of these problems, as privatized water is water only available to those who can afford it. As many as 1.1 billion out of the world’s 6 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water. In many developing nations, people are forces to pay for water that was a public good until their water system was privatized. Because that water is so expensive, people drink out of polluted streams nearby, where the water is free. However, these streams can contain cholera, and many other water-borne diseases. In Kwaz – Zulu, Natal, South Africa, the rural poor pay more for their water than the better-off urban people do. How does that even make sense? When the water meter system was installed, instructional books were handed out, but they were in English, which most of the villagers couldn’t read.
The World Bank actually promotes privatization in the developing world. If any country comes to them for aid, one of the conditions in receiving this aid is that that country must privatize its water system. When Bolivia asked for aid in 1997, it had to privatize its water, so water giant Bechtel came in and took over the water rights for the city of Cochabamba. Once the water was privatized, the price increased do much that many people couldn’t afford it, and even more people were enraged when told they could not collect rainwater, as that belonged to Bechtel as well. Protests turned into rioting, which then led to the overthrow of the previous government of Cochabamba, and a popular vote which led to Bechtel getting kicked out of the city.
The World Bank is also the world’s largest funder of Dams, which cause a drastic change in the local ecosystem and the flow of water and nutrients through that ecosystem. Dams stop water flow, cause the living matter in the water to rot, which then releases methane. Dams can sometimes be 20 times more polluting than a coal plant. The World Banks must spend $20 billion a year to remain profitable, and so they blow through most of it and huge projects every year in a few select places. The best solutions in most cases are much cheaper solutions across many areas of the world. But instead of spending small amounts in many places, the World Bank prefers to spend all its money in one or two places.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
What I enjoyed most about the film was the combination approach it took to the documentary, mixing scientific facts and data with pathos, the emotions and views of the people. I feel as if the film really accomplished its goals of conveying the severity of the problems at both global and personal scale. With that in mind, I really enjoyed the part of the film with Rajendra Singh and his revitalization of a village in India. When he first came to the village, it was almost a desert landscape, with a few bushes. He talked to the village elder, who told him how people used to harness water in the past, and he acted upon the man’s instructions. He got the whole village to help make a large catchment reservoir for water, and this brought lush greenery and jobs back to that village, and now Rajendra Singh is an activist for water rights, as much of India has its water privatized. The story of one man making that much of a difference, with the help of a community, was both inspirational. It also served as proof that there are ways to solve large problems with the power of people.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I found the film to have excellent delivery of its message, but the focus of the movie was really on water privatization in the developing world. This problem is a real one, but is also far removed from the experiences of the main viewership of this movie, the people of the western world. That is not to say that the impact of the movie is entirely lost, just that it is difficult for the average viewer to retain the view that drinkable water is a scarce resource in so many parts of the world when they go home and water is so abundant and cheap.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses a wide range of viewers, as the film presumes the viewer knows nothing about the issue or next to nothing about related issues. It deals with a topic relevant to every person on the face of the earth, which adds to its appeal. With that said, this film would most likely be more effective if viewed by an adolescent or young adult, as this film goes through the problem by touching on many of the problems that intersect the major problem of water scarcity, and builds on its previous information. The film requires almost no previous knowledge, and so the less known before watching means that information is that much more startling. The film also goes at a fairly fast pace, a pace some of the more elderly viewers may not care to keep up with.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
This is more a societal issue than an issue with the film, but the film could have included more about privatized water areas in the US or Europe, so the issue felt more relevant. The daily water consumption of an average American could have been given, and then it could have been compared to an Indian or African person’s water consumption, just to show how great the difference is. This would give a greater mental reference as to how much more severe their conditions are than our own.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film showed several points of intervention throughout the film. Water conservation techniques were shown as a way to provide an area with an adequate water supply. The power of protest was also explored with the Coca-Cola plant in India, where Coke was eventually forced to leave. Another interesting water purification solution shown in the film was UV water filtration on a local scale, where a town or village would have its own purification system maintained by a trained local person to keep costs down, and make the water cleaner so everyone can drink it safely. The film also asks the viewer to petition to add the Right to Water to be added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as article 31.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The film has compelled me to seek out more information on Rajendra Singh, the man who revitalized a village in India. This man is now known as the “Gandhi of Water” for his activism for the free public use of water. According to an article I found, he began on his journey to travel the entire length of the Ganges River to bring attention to India’s water problems on October 1, 2010. His focus is on smaller solutions that use appropriate technology for rural and developing areas.
After watching the movie and seeing the push to add the Right to Water, I wanted to see if there were other resources on this petition, and what I was actually led to was the website for this movie. The ‘take action’ tab of the website brings you to the place to sign the petition, but it also includes links to many places where there are many different groups in different parts of the world taking action against this problem of water ownership and scarcity.
References:
Article on Rajendra Singh : < http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/why-gandhi-of-water-rajendra-singh-is-walking-the-length-of-the-ganges-river.php >
Take Action section of the FLOW movie website: < http://www.flowthefilm.com/takeaction >.